INTEGRATED RIVER BASIN MANAGEMENT
Results of the water 21 project
Paper for Hydrotop, Marseille 17 June 1999
Erik Mostert, RBA Centre, Delft University of Technology[1]
Summary
This paper presents the research that has been done in the Water 21 project on river basin management (rbm) and analyses the proposal for a Framework directive Water in the light of the conclusions of this research. Water 21 is a collaborative research project involving teams from five European countries (France, Germany, The Netherlands, Portugal and the United Kingdom), seeking a comprehensive appraisal of water policies in Europe in terms of sustainability. As part of the project, research as conducted on the different instruments and approaches used in rbm in these five countries and in six transboundary river basins. Support was found for the initial theory that co-operation between the different managers, user involvement and the use of expertise promote effective, sustainable rbm. Another conclusion is that rbm should always combine generic and river basin specific instruments and approaches. The proposal for a Framework Directive Water reflects these conclusions only partially.
1Introduction
River basins are important management units. River basins are the natural context in which freshwater occurs. They are the ultimate source of all water used in households, agriculture and industry and the receptor of most wastewater. Moreover, the waters in river basins have important non-consumptive uses, such as recreation, nature, fishing and hydropower production. Consequently, effective river basin management (rbm) is imperative.
Rbm is not a new topic, but recently attention has been increasing. In Europe the most notable facts are the signing in 1992 of the UN-ECE Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes (UNECE 1992); and the proposal of the European Commission for a Council Directive establishing a Framework for Community Action in the field of water policy (Commission 1997). The Helsinki Convention and the Framework Directive raise important implementation questions, which have to be solved in the very near future.
Against this background rbm was chosen as an important topic in the Water 21 project. Water 21 is a collaborative research project seeking a comprehensive appraisal of water policies in Europe in terms of sustainability. Five universities and research institutes from five European countries are involved in this project: France (LATTS), Germany (Ecologic), the Netherlands (RBA Centre, TU Delft), Portugal (IST, co-ordinator) and the United Kingdom (WRc). The project is funded by the Environment Research Programme managed by DG XII of the Commission of the European Union, with additional funds provided to some teams by national organisations.
This paper presents the research within Water 21 project on rbm and analyses the proposal for a Framework Directive in the light of the conclusions reached. It will pay attention to the following topics:
-What is river basin management?
-Water 21 research on rbm
-The results: rbm in five countries and six international basins
-Conclusions of the project
-The Framework Directive in the light of the Water 21 conclusions
This paper is based on the Water 21 report “River Basin Management and Planning; Institutional structures, approaches and results in five European countries and six international basins” (Mostert ed. 1999), which contains much more details and references.
2What is river basin management?
Central in the notion rbm is of course the term river basin. A river basin is the geographical area determined by the watershed limits of the system of waters, including surface and underground waters, flowing into a common terminus (cf. art. II of the Helsinki rules). However, river basins are not just geographical areas. What turns the area into a unit are the strong relations between the different constituent parts and elements: land and water, groundwater and surface water, quantity and quality, upstream and downstream. For instance, an increase in agriculture and use of pesticides upstream can decrease the quantity and quality of the water available downstream. Through mechanisms such as these “water and soils” in the river basin “come into some sort of integration” (Lundqvist et al. 1985: 14).
It has to be noted that river basin boundaries are sometimes ambiguous and always permeable. Some rivers traditionally seen as separate have a common estuary (e.g. the Rhine and the Meuse) and could be seen as belonging to one river system. Moreover, in “natural” flatland areas water flows are rather erratic, and in engineered flatlands determined (and alterable) by means of canals, sluices and pumps. Finally, aquifer boundaries and the watershed for surface waters never coincide exactly and sometimes are completely different. Finally, river basins are not closed systems. They interact continuously with the atmosphere (precipitation and evaporation, airborne pollution etc.) and the receiving waters (seas and sometimes lakes). In addition, the uses made of river basins often transcend river basin boundaries. For example, hydropower produced in one basin may benefit areas in other basins, and water for irrigation and drinking water supply may be transferred from one basin to another.
Whether clearly demarcated or not, river basins have to be managed carefully. This is quite difficult, given the very diverse characteristics of rbm. (Box 1, next page) The Water 21 project studied how the challenge could be met best.
1. Multifunctionality
River basins perform numerous functions, such as fishing, water supply, hydropower generation, recreation and nature. Often these conflict. River basins may be developed to perform the different functions better, but this is often costly. Consequently, the different functions have to be balanced against each other and against the costs they entail.
2. Users
River basins with many functions automatically have many types of users with different interests. This implies that balancing functions is not a neutral activity.
3. Managers
Most basins have many managers. Even if all water management is in one hand, relevant aspects of other policy sectors (land-use, agriculture etc.) are not. As each manager’s competencies and capacity are limited, they are dependent on each other for achieving their goals and should therefore co-operate. At the same time, there are ample possibilities for conflict as the different managers usually represent different (mixes of) interests. Especially in international basins conflicts may occur, due to cultural and language differences, the additional (international) government level involved, differences in national goals, and the absence of an effective international judiciary and executive able to decide in controversial issues.
4. Asymmetric power relations
A special characteristic of rbm, complicating it even further, are the asymmetric power-relations caused by hydrological factors. To overstate the issue: the downstream users and managers are at the mercy of the upstream users and managers. Power asymmetry is, however, never total. On other issues the “upstreamers” may depend on the “downstreamers” (e.g. maritime access), and the former may appeal to the goodwill of the latter.
5. Technically complex
A last characteristic of rbm is its technically complex character. As there are so many different interrelations in river basins, it is difficult to foresee the effect of specific measures. Therefore, extensive research may be necessary.
Box 1: Characteristics of river basin management
3Water 21 rbm research
3.1Eurowater, the predecessor of Water 21
The Water 21 research on rbm built on the research on rbm in the Eurowater project, which was like the Water 21 project a European research project, sponsored by the European Commission, DG XII, and with the same partners. The Eurowater project studied and compared the different institutions for national rbm in the five Eurowater/ Water 21 countries (Betlem 1998) and identified three different institutional models:
-The hydrological model (management by river basin authorities)
-The administrative model (management not based on river basins at all)
-The co-ordinated model (co-ordination at the river basin level)
As argued elsewhere (Mostert 1998), each model has advantages and disadvantages – the administrative model primarily disadvantages. Moreover, the hydrological model may not be feasible in countries with a high degree of decentralisation and in international basins. Furthermore, it was concluded that the specific instruments and approaches used in rbm are at least as important as the institutional model – and easier to change.
3.2Scope and research question
In the Water 21 project, river basin management was selected as one of three dimensions of water management deserving special attention, the other two being water services provision (water supply and wastewater treatment), and subsidiarity. River basin management was taken in a broader sense than in Eurowater. It includes all activities, whether from the public or the private sector, that aim at a better functioning of the water system in river basins and the land in as far as relevant for or depending on the water system. Thus, it includes not only water management in a strict sense, but also large parts of land-use planning and agricultural and industrial policy. Moreover, the Water 21 project did not only consider national basins, but also international basins. The main focus was not on institutional models, but on the specific instruments and approaches that can be used in rbm.
The basic theory used was very simple. We assumed that rbm systems should be judged by the results that they yield and not by their institutional form or “theoretical beauty.” We define effective rbm as rbm that ensures that river basins fulfil their different functions in a satisfactory way, and will continue to do so into the foreseeable future. We furthermore hypothesise that three factors promote such results: co-operation between the different managers, user involvement, and the use of expertise. Consequently, the instruments and approaches used in rbm should stimulate co-operation, user involvement and expertise.
Based on this theory, we addressed three questions:
-Which instruments and approaches for rbm are used in the Eurowater countries and the selected international basins?
-Do these instruments and approaches, promote co-operation, user involvement and the use of expertise, given the specific hydrological, socio-economic and institutional context?
-Do co-operation, user involvement and the use of expertise promote effective rbm?
The ultimate aim was twofold: to increase insight in rbm; and to support the choice of instruments and approaches at the national and the EU level and in international basins.
3.3Research methodology
The research used the case-study approach (Yin 1986). First a theoretical framework was developed (basically a specification of the basic theory). Following case descriptions were prepared in order to test and illustrate the theoretical framework. Finally, the cases were compared carefully, conclusions were drawn concerning the instruments to be used in rbm, and the theoretical framework was adapted and enriched.
Cases were conducted at two levels. The “first order” case studies are the descriptions of rbm in the five Water 21 countries and descriptions of the management of six selected international river basins. The second-order case studies were individual basins within the five countries. (Figure 1, next page)
Research teams from all countries studies were involved, co-ordinated by the co-ordinator for the Water 21 topic rbm, the Dutch team. The co-ordinator drafted the theoretical framework and terms of reference for the case studies in co-operation with the other team. Following, each team conducted its national case study, and some teams also an international case study. These case studies were reviewed by the co-ordinator to safeguard consistency. Finally, the co-ordinator drafted the conclusions, which were discussed with all other teams.
*: In Germany several case studies
Figure 1: Research design
4Results: rbm in five countries and six international basins
4.1Instruments and approaches
The research has resulted in the first place in an overview of rbm systems in the different countries and international basins studied. In most countries and international basins all instruments and approaches can be found, but their popularity differs quite a lot (Table 1, next page). Moreover, even if in two countries the same instrument or approach is popular, these may still be implemented quite differently. For instance, in the Netherlands the function of planning ranges form policy preparation, to strategy formulation and to co-ordinating and prioritising individual activities and projects. In England and Wales, on the other hand, emphasis is very much on the last function of planning.
“Standard instruments” / More integrated approaches / River basin authoritiesRegulato-ry / Econo-mic/ financial / Commu-nicative / Operatio-nal / Consulta-tion, ne-gotiation / Planning / River basin commis-sions / Analytical tools
France / X / X / X / X, a
Germany / X / X / X
The Netherlands / X / X / X, b / X / X, c
Portugal / X / X / X, d / X
United Kingdom (England and Wales) / X / X / X / X / X
Rhine / X / X / X
Scheldt and Meuse / X / X
Spanish-Portuguese
basins / X / X
Proposed Framework
Directive / X / X / X
a: Only with respect to planning and economic instruments
b: Usually sectoral and not based on river basins
c: Only at the subbasin level
d: Plans still in preparation
Table 1: Most popular instruments and approaches in river basin management
4.2Co-operation, user involvement and use of expertise
The degree of co-operation, user involvement and use of expertise too differs between the different countries and basins. In France, the new (1992) river basin planning system has improved the co-operation between the managers and the involvement of the users. The bodies that exist at the basin (Agences de l’Eau) and the subbasin level (Local Water Commissions) include representatives from different government bodies and user groups, albeit the latter as a minority. Moreover, the Local Water Commissions improved the use of expertise significantly. They produce a lot of information and their board composition adds legitimacy to the information.
In Germany co-operation between managers is extensive, especially in river basin commissions with a co-ordinating task and in professional organisations. Some problems, however, persist (e.g. the in the relation between waterway management and water management). Different user groups can participate in the many water users associations, which execute parts of German rbm, such as river maintenance or sewage treatment. Expertise too plays a big role. Technical guidelines produced by technical-scientific associations and their working groups are often generally accepted and function as technical standards.
In The Netherlands, co-operation between the managers is usually satisfactory. The planning system, the several steering groups and commissions, and the Dutch consensus culture imply that there are many contacts between the managers. Still, co-ordination problems do occur, for instance within the provinces and between the waterboards and municipalities. The users can participate in the waterboards and in planning, but still some many managers like to keep control over management and limit the role of the users. The use of expertise in Dutch rbm is extensive, especially at the national level. The expertise available at the smaller municipalities is often limited.
In Portugal, in the absence of integrated planning, co-operation between the different managers is on an ad-hoc basis. Still, co-operation between the central and local powers is generally effective. Conflicts that do arise derive often from disagreements over the financing of certain planned works. User involvement takes several forms. They can participate in users associations, in river basin councils for the big basins, and in the preparation of the municipal master plans. The use of expertise is still limited, and most information available to managers is sectoral in nature.
In the England and Wales co-operation between water managers is high, with many water management functions integrated in one organisation, the Environment Agency. Co-operation with land-use planners has traditionally been limited, but several efforts are being made to improve co-operation. The Environment Agency actively consults the local authorities, NGOs and segments of the public in the so-called LEAP-process. The use of expertise in rbm is extensive.
In the international basin the major issue is international co-operation. In this respect the Rhine clearly takes the lead of all international basins studied. Countries co-operate in the framework of the International Rhine Commission since 1950, and since a few years also international NGOs can participate directly in the Commission’s work. Expertise has always played a central role in the International Rhine Commission. There is joint monitoring, the main emission sources have been inventoried, etc. As in the case of the Local Water Commission, the presence of a legitimate institution has given the reports and information produced the force of greater integrity.
In the Meuse and Scheldt basins international co-operation is of a more recent date and has not yet developed in the same degree. Moreover, user involvement seems to be more limited. Expertise again plays an important role.
In the Iberian basins one should distinguish between two periods with quite different issues. Until 1993, co-operation on boundary issues and hydropower issues was effective. Gradually, however, possible future water shortages and water pollution became important, and in November 1998 Portugal and Spain agreed on a new convention with a broader scope. The role of expertise in the management of the Iberian basins is not as explicit as in the case of the other basins studied.
4.3Results in the basin
As stated before, rbm systems should be judged by the results that they yield and not by their institutional form or “theoretical beauty.” Looking at the results, we can see that in
Sewage / Other point sources / Diffuse sources / Water quality / Water scarcity / Flooding and river maintenance / Overall degradation? / Integration of water management and land-use planning? / Conflicts within areas (e.g. concerning agriculture) / Conflicts between areas/ countriesFrance / A, 2 / A, 2-3 / A-X, 1-2 / A, 2 / A-X, 1-2 / A-X,1-2 / No / A, 1-2 / A, 2 / B, 2
Germany / A, 2-3 / A, 3 / A, 1-2 / B, 2 / X / A, 2 / No / A, 2 / A, 2 / B, 3
The Netherlands / A, 2 (storm-waters) / A, 3 / A, 1-2 / A, 3 / B, 1 / A, 2 / No / A, 1-2 / A, 2 / B, 3
Portugal
(Trancão basin) / A, 1-2 / A, 1-2. / A, 1. / A, 1-2. / X (future: A?) / A, 1-2 / No / A, 1-2 / A, 2 / A, 2
United Kingdom
(England and Wales) / A, 3 / A, 3 / A, 2 / A, 2 / B, 3 / A, 3 / No / A, 1-2 / B, 2 / B, 3
Rhine / A, 3 / A, 2-3 / A, 2 / A-B, 2-3 / X / A, 2 / No / A, 2 / A, 2 / A, 2
Scheldt/ Meuse / A, 2 / A, 2 / B, 2 / A, 2-3 / A, 2 / A, 1-2 / No / A, 2 / A, 1-2 / A, 1-2
Spanish-Portuguese basins / B, 2 / B, 2 / B, 2 / B, 2 / A, 2 / n.d. / No / n.d. / X / A, 1-2
A: Important issue1: Issue unresolved